Terrorism

It is not that a government can only kill the innocents in other countries. Many a times, government does not even flinch away from the possibility of killing its own citizens and that too for their own welfare.
During the Indira Gandhi regime in 1984, when a handful of terrorists lead by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale occupied the Golden Temple, Indian government ordered attack and firing on the Golden Temple. That act was named as Operation Blue Star that killed Thousands of Innocent people along with Bhindranwale’s supporters.
Those innocent people were simple religious people and Indian government actually was supposed to safeguard them. Similarly, many innocents were killed during the formation of Bangladesh by the Pakistani government.

The Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, is on the way to amend the Arms and ammunitions policy. The document issued by MHA says “Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development.” How…

War has a Role in Peace
While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioning Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?

Long ago at the shores of Indian Ocean, there used to be a country. It was an officially democratic nation whose ruler caste (whom we now a days know as Politicians) were very happy and prosperous. As the nation was officially Democratic, no one was actually puzzled against the extreme prosperity of the politicians, the rulers of that nation. The general population was also presumably satisfied at their standards.
Many people were happy because they could get the rationed LPG fuel cylinder while standing in the queue, while some others were happy because they could get the Gas cylinder easily at a little higher price through black marketing.

Tourism is one of the major sources of income for Pakistan but because of all those raucous of terrorism and military rule and wars, tourism is deeply hurt.
In order to revamp the tourism industry, a Senate panel has asked the government to send the newly-inducted Tourism Minister, Maulana Attaur Rehman, on a visit to verdant beaches in South France and Switzerland to get modern ideas of promoting tourism industry that contributes immensely to Pakistan’s economy.
The thing to be mentioned is, beaches of France and Switzerland are famous for the topless and one-piece bikinis. The exhibitionism and freedom of expression on those beaches is at extreme peaks, and that is one of the main reasons for the success of those beaches as the major tourist attraction whole round the world.
Pakistan also has a huge shoreline, so can Pakistan ministry adopt the “modern” and innovative ways to strengthen tourism and give any sort of competition?
Exhibitionism is almost impossible in Pakistan especially under those Islamic laws.

The first Irony of the political freedom is the very logic of democracy which just seeks a 50% + 1 as the mandatory majority for any democratic resolution to get through. Even though this tyranny of majority on the free will of the minority defies all logic of individual liberty and freedom, it is still hailed as one of the most fair and just political systems which at any time represents will of the majority of its citizens. For instance we may have voted against the present regime of government, but we still honor outcome of a democratic contest and accept its decision as our own. In American context Barak Obama is president of each and every American irrespective of whom they voted in the election. The moment we accept this as a fact and with our free will decides to follow and exercise democracy, we cannot exonerate ourselves thereafter from consequence of any decision our representatives take on our behalf.

Is Obama a legitimate murderer? It is an age old philosophical dilemma. How can we claim that the President who ordered is the killer and not the soldiers? Obama ordered the bombing, but he was not the person who bombed. He did not kill anybody, nor was his motive was to kill innocent people. The soldier, who actually bombed can be termed as the killer, because he knew his actions would certainly kill innocent people, or was he not certain about it? Moreover, the missiles on America were bombed by unmanned aircraft. That is, no soldier actually attacked on any Pakistani. They just programmed the missiles to drop at a certain area, which they assumed is free of any Pakistani civilian and full of Jihadist terrorists. The intention of those soldiers was not to kill innocent civilians but to attack the Jihadists. Therefore, here is the contradiction.